Prem Suja v. Assistant Commissioner of Police Contonment, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor; Bindhu Lekha

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1945** **CRL.APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2023 IN CRLMC 1720/2023 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE COURT FOR TRIAL OF SC/ST CASES,** ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **PREM SUJA, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O PREMANANDAN, TC 3/230, SUJA BHAVAN, PULLUKADU, KARIMANAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695583.** **BY ADVS. G.SUDHEER R.HARIKRISHNAN SMRITHI S.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:** - **1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CONTONEMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682031.** - **3 SMT.BINDHU LEKHA D/O BABYKARTHIKA, SASTHACOIL ROAD, THYVILA, PERUKAVU, VILAVOORKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695573.** **R1 & R2 BY SMT SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 BY BENCILAL B.S. R3 BY LEKSHMY I. R3 BY RINU. S. ASWAN R3 BY HARITHA K.S. R3 BY S.V.SREEJITH R3 BY GOPIKA H.H** 2 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.10.2023, THE COURT ON 06.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023** **----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of November, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The appellant assails the order of the Special Court for trial of offences under the SC/ST Act cases, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissing her petition seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.335 of 2023 of Museum Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-defacto complainant. 3. Crime No.335 of 2023 was registered based on the statement of the 3rd respondent given to a Senior women Civil Police Officer attached to the Museum Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The accusation against the appellant 4 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 is that she used to hurl abusive and ridiculing comments connecting to the caste of the 3rd respondent, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste; whereas the appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste. Both of them are working at the Central for Development of Imaging Technology (C-DIT). The specific allegation is that on 15.12.2022 while the foundation day celebration of the C-DIT was going on at the Jimmy George Stadium, Thiruvananthapuram, the appellant cast aspersions and aired ridiculing words against the 3rd respondent connecting to her Scheduled Caste status. 4. Before the Special Court, the application filed by the appellant for anticipatory bail was opposed on the ground that the offence was grave in nature and in the light of the bar created under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail should not be granted. The Public Prosecutor made available for my perusal a report of the investigating officer. It is reported that in the investigation, it was revealed that the 3 rd respondent belongs to Cheraman Caste, which is notified by the Government to be a Scheduled Caste. A contention was 5 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3rd respondent, in fact. is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, but in the light of the report of the investigating officer, the said contention cannot be accepted at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on Annexures A2 and A5, which are the complaints submitted by the 3rd respondent before the Chairperson, Women's Committee and State President of the C-DIt Employees Association respectively that her real grievance is denial of a request for a transfer and on her impression that she was denied transfer at the intervention of the appellant, she foisted the complaint. The delay in launching the prosecution is also highlighted. 6. Going by the First Information Statement, the incident was on 15.12.2022. The crime was registered on 29.03.2023. From the materials available on record, it is seen that while the 3rd respondent while preferring complaints and giving her statement before the Service Organisation and Internal Complaints Committee what she espoused was the 6 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 harassment at the workplace. She had mostly levelled allegations against the appellant regarding the official work of the 3rd respondent. While she was undergoing treatment in the hospital following her attempted suicide, her statement was recorded on 29.03.2023, based on which the crime was registered. It was in the said F.I.statement she stated in detail regarding the incident on 15.12.2022 and other incidents of harassment said to have been perpetrated by the appellant connecting to her caste. In such circumstances, the nondisclosure of the details of her allegations in this case on previous occasions or the delay in registering the crime cannot be reasons for finding that no offence under the SC/ST Act would be attracted against the appellant. Further, the investigating officer in his report categorically stated that from the investigation conducted so far sufficient materials came on record to _prima facie_ establish the commission of the alleged offence by the appellant. 7. In order to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act following are the 7 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 ingredients to be established,- - (i) The accused must not be a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe; - (ii) The insult or intimidation or abuse must be made with intent to humiliate a member of the particular community, and - (iii) The act must have been committed within public view. - (See: **Sooraj V.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala and others** ## **[2022 (5) KHC 269** ] 8. From the F.I.statement and other materials on record those ingredients are _prima facie made out_ in this case. Therefore, I find no infirmity to the order of the Special Court. This appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 8 Crl.Appeal No.1089 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1089/2023** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO. 335 OF 2023 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION PENDING BEFORE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON OF WOMEN'S COMMITTEE, CDIT ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOGRAPH OF APPLICANT ALONG WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS OF CDIT IN THE EVENT OF FOUNDATION DAY OF CDIT ANNEXURE A4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY KPMS KAZHAKUTTOM REGARDING THE FUNCTION ON 22.08.2021 AND PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SAID FUNCTION ANNEXURE A5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE UNION LEADER DATED 19.01.2023 ANNEXURE A6 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT TO THE REGISTRAR, CDIT DATED 22.01.2023** **ANNEXURE A7 COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE DATED 14.02.2023 ANNEXURE A8 COPY OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON 19.04.2023 AT THE DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY ANNEXURE A9 COPY OF THE COVER PAGES AND CHAPTER 33 OF THE NOVEL 'SUBHADRA' WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED BY THE APPLICANT**